International Space Station is very noisy

source:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...cdrcrd/19.html

The International Space Station is surprisingly loud - the result of
pumps and fans that circulate air throughout the station. Current noise
levels on the ISS, which has been in orbit since 1998, are between 55
and 69 decibels, the equivalent of a normal conversation and a vacuum
cleaner, respectively. NASA has been working to lower noise levels (its
goal is 50 to 55 decibels) through various muffling methods, including
vibration isolation and acoustic paneling on walls, and by replacing
old fans with more efficient models. The efforts are paying off: In the
past, the ISS averaged 10 decibels louder.

What do the noise levels on the ISS mean for the astronauts who spend
six months or more on board? On Earth, noise levels under 85 decibels
are considered acceptable in the work environment. There is no standard
for continuous exposure beyond the eight-hour workday, however. And
there's no way to get away from the noise on the ISS, short of
wearing NASA-supplied earplugs or noise-canceling headphones 24/7.
Apart from a recent Russian news-service article mentioning diminished
hearing, there are no hard data available. Although NASA won't
comment on its astronauts' health, its noise-reduction efforts speak
for themselves.

Thanks -- any idea how OLD this news item is?


wrote in message
ps.com...
source:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...cdrcrd/19.html

The International Space Station is surprisingly loud - the result of
pumps and fans that circulate air throughout the station. Current noise
levels on the ISS, which has been in orbit since 1998, are between 55
and 69 decibels, the equivalent of a normal conversation and a vacuum
cleaner, respectively. NASA has been working to lower noise levels (its
goal is 50 to 55 decibels) through various muffling methods, including
vibration isolation and acoustic paneling on walls, and by replacing
old fans with more efficient models. The efforts are paying off: In the
past, the ISS averaged 10 decibels louder.

What do the noise levels on the ISS mean for the astronauts who spend
six months or more on board? On Earth, noise levels under 85 decibels
are considered acceptable in the work environment. There is no standard
for continuous exposure beyond the eight-hour workday, however. And
there's no way to get away from the noise on the ISS, short of
wearing NASA-supplied earplugs or noise-canceling headphones 24/7.
Apart from a recent Russian news-service article mentioning diminished
hearing, there are no hard data available. Although NASA won't
comment on its astronauts' health, its noise-reduction efforts speak
for themselves.

Jim Oberg wrote:
Thanks -- any idea how OLD this news item is?

I do not know.

I believe that a small, solar powered orbital greenhouse would be
superior to the International Space Station because it would be
cheaper, less noisy, more pleasant, and it would make its own oxygen
and food.

wrote:
What do the noise levels on the ISS mean for the astronauts who spend
six months or more on board? On Earth, noise levels under 85 decibels
are considered acceptable in the work environment. There is no standard
for continuous exposure beyond the eight-hour workday, however. And
there's no way to get away from the noise on the ISS, short of
wearing NASA-supplied earplugs or noise-canceling headphones 24/7.
Apart from a recent Russian news-service article mentioning diminished
hearing, there are no hard data available. Although NASA won't
comment on its astronauts' health, its noise-reduction efforts speak
for themselves.



About the first thing we did on docking our Unity module to the Zarya
was replace the circulation fans in the Zarya module, as they were way
above NASA's noise standards.

Patt

Jim Oberg wrote:
Thanks -- any idea how OLD this news item is?





Here's more of the same:
http://space.newscientist.com/articl...s-hearing.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...8/s1720437.htm
http://www.hssensorsystems.com/hsc/d...TI5517,00.html

Pat

wrote:
I do not know.

I believe that a small, solar powered orbital greenhouse would be
superior to the International Space Station because it would be
cheaper, less noisy, more pleasant, and it would make its own oxygen
and food.


You're still going to need fans, as the air won't circulate naturally in
zero G; there's no thermal upwelling.

Pat

on 18 Jan 2007 14:47:20 -0800,
sez:

Jim Oberg wrote:

Thanks -- any idea how OLD this news item is?

I do not know.

I believe that a small, solar powered orbital greenhouse would be
superior to the International Space Station because it would be
cheaper, less noisy, more pleasant, and it would make its own oxygen
and food.

There is no air convection in free fall. No matter how you generate
oxygen or recycle CO2, you must have fans to move the air past
your processing plant, and to distribute heat and oxygen to
all the living spaces. Similarly all the water in your greenhouse
must be pumped. It's not clear that this system would be any
quieter than what they've got. Large slow moving fans are generally
quieter than small ones for the same air movement, but space
is very much at a premium on the station, so that's not a
good option.


--
================================================== ========================
Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

pete wrote:
on 18 Jan 2007 14:47:20 -0800,
sez:

Jim Oberg wrote:

Thanks -- any idea how OLD this news item is?

I do not know.

I believe that a small, solar powered orbital greenhouse would be
superior to the International Space Station because it would be
cheaper, less noisy, more pleasant, and it would make its own oxygen
and food.

There is no air convection in free fall. No matter how you generate
oxygen or recycle CO2, you must have fans to move the air past
your processing plant, and to distribute heat and oxygen to
all the living spaces. Similarly all the water in your greenhouse
must be pumped. It's not clear that this system would be any
quieter than what they've got. Large slow moving fans are generally
quieter than small ones for the same air movement, but space
is very much at a premium on the station, so that's not a
good option.

Large slowly rotating fans should work well in very large hydroponic
plant growing spaces, inside large hydrogen booster tanks, for instance.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Pete Vincent wrote:

There is no air convection in free fall. No matter how you generate
oxygen or recycle CO2, you must have fans to move the air past
your processing plant, and to distribute heat and oxygen to
all the living spaces. Similarly all the water in your greenhouse
must be pumped. It's not clear that this system would be any
quieter than what they've got. Large slow moving fans are generally
quieter than small ones for the same air movement, but space
is very much at a premium on the station, so that's not a
good option.

You can spin the greenhouse to generate pseudogravity.
You can make small windows to let concentrated sunlight
into the greenhouse. The windows can be cooled with
a pool of water held by pseudogravity on the windows.
This design replicates the biosphere of the Earth.
Water evaporates and condenses on cool soil. There
is no wind, but there is enough air circulation to
support life.

The cost of Earth-to-orbit transportation is determined
by cargo mass rather than cargo volume. Furthermore,
Canadian telerobot called Dextre can assemble the
greenhouse from narrow pieces of sheetmetal densely
packed inside a rocket launcher. Dextre is a very
advanced space telerobot -- it can handle bolts.
More info: http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/iss/mss_spdm.asp

Very little useful science is done in the International
Space Station (ISS). Its real purpose is making TV news
featuring photogenic "astronauts." Most of the work done
by the "astronauts" is maintenance -- the ISS is poorly
designed and it breaks down frequently.

wrote:
Pete Vincent wrote:

There is no air convection in free fall. No matter how you generate
oxygen or recycle CO2, you must have fans to move the air past
your processing plant, and to distribute heat and oxygen to
all the living spaces. Similarly all the water in your greenhouse
must be pumped. It's not clear that this system would be any
quieter than what they've got. Large slow moving fans are generally
quieter than small ones for the same air movement, but space
is very much at a premium on the station, so that's not a
good option.

You can spin the greenhouse to generate pseudogravity.
You can make small windows to let concentrated sunlight
into the greenhouse. The windows can be cooled with
a pool of water held by pseudogravity on the windows.
This design replicates the biosphere of the Earth.
Water evaporates and condenses on cool soil. There
is no wind, but there is enough air circulation to
support life.

The cost of Earth-to-orbit transportation is determined
by cargo mass rather than cargo volume. Furthermore,
Canadian telerobot called Dextre can assemble the
greenhouse from narrow pieces of sheetmetal densely
packed inside a rocket launcher. Dextre is a very
advanced space telerobot -- it can handle bolts.
More info: http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/iss/mss_spdm.asp

Very little useful science is done in the International
Space Station (ISS). Its real purpose is making TV news
featuring photogenic "astronauts." Most of the work done
by the "astronauts" is maintenance -- the ISS is poorly
designed and it breaks down frequently.

No ****. If you are not growing plants in space, then you really need
to completely rethink your entire metabolic system. Man plant or man
Borg, it's your choice.